I'm having trouble grasping what common good you see coming from your proposal. I would accept "independent review board chosen from the jury duty pool must review all bodycam fotage", but your position as you represent it is far too easy to abuse.
By this logic, if the police break into your house while you're having an affair, you have no right to deny them publication of it immediately to a public website. There is tremendous potential for abuse here. For example, corrupt cops would immediately begin 'accidentally' (wink, wink) recording bodycam footage while 'not on duty' (wink, wink) when paid to by their buyers, or whenever someone is naked, since publication would be automatic and they would be immune to prosecution for their corrupt and abusive actions.
From a societal injustice standpoint, it would be an extremely effective way for abusive police to enforce white male privilege upon citizens (in the same way that doxxing does). If you aren't white and male, you're at a much higher risk of being killed or driven to suicide by this "publish everything" approach capturing some behavior that abusive people can use to justify attacking you. If you are white and male, you can just shrug it off and other white men (the most likely attackers in this scenario) will give you a pass so they can get away with it too. Statistically, significantly fewer white men will suffer as a result relative to other subgroups.
If you're able to see a way forward that does not have a high risk of doing damage to US society (including to people other than white men), please share it.
The policemen can talk about what they saw, the jury can talk about what they saw, the violation of privacy happens the moment that the police walk into your house. If something is not private enough for a group of random people to review then it is not private enough for the wider public either.
> By this logic ...
No, not really. The point of this is to establish a form of full disclosure - this is also my position about disclosing vulnerabilities. It should be public and uncensored so that the public knows about the full extend of data leakage and can act accordingly. I do not see how what you said follows from what I said.
> If something is not private enough for a group of random people to review then it is not private enough for the wider public either.
The possibility of jurors disclosing sealed evidence does not negate the importance of the jury process, or of sealing evidence from public disclosure. It is still valuable to take these steps, even if fewer than 100% of participants adhere to the rules.
> It should be public and uncensored so that the public knows about the full extend of data leakage and can act accordingly.
I disagree. If medical records are leaked, they should not be treated as "public and uncensored". If criminal records are sealed and then leaked, they should not be treated as "public and uncensored". If the home address and work phone number of every citizen is leaked, that should not be treated as "public and uncensored". The public does not need comprehensive access to the data that was leaked in order to grasp "the full extent of data leakage". It is absolutely essential that a dependable third party review that data set — I trust HaveIBeenPwned, and I mostly trust press reporters — but their summary is generally quite sufficient without having them republish all of that data for anyone to review.
> They can just use normal cameras then.
Per your statement, bodycam footage should be disclosed publicly regardless of content, which would require legal protections against anyone suing to have footage taken down. Use of normal cameras would not provide such legal protections. This is not a valid equivalence to consider.
By this logic, if the police break into your house while you're having an affair, you have no right to deny them publication of it immediately to a public website. There is tremendous potential for abuse here. For example, corrupt cops would immediately begin 'accidentally' (wink, wink) recording bodycam footage while 'not on duty' (wink, wink) when paid to by their buyers, or whenever someone is naked, since publication would be automatic and they would be immune to prosecution for their corrupt and abusive actions.
From a societal injustice standpoint, it would be an extremely effective way for abusive police to enforce white male privilege upon citizens (in the same way that doxxing does). If you aren't white and male, you're at a much higher risk of being killed or driven to suicide by this "publish everything" approach capturing some behavior that abusive people can use to justify attacking you. If you are white and male, you can just shrug it off and other white men (the most likely attackers in this scenario) will give you a pass so they can get away with it too. Statistically, significantly fewer white men will suffer as a result relative to other subgroups.
If you're able to see a way forward that does not have a high risk of doing damage to US society (including to people other than white men), please share it.